By Archimandrite Athinagoras Soupourtzis*
The exploration of clergy’s freedom of expression within the Orthodox Church, as framed by Greek and European legal frameworks, requires an interdisciplinary approach. The unique legal status of the Church as the “prevailing religion” (Article 3 of the Greek Constitution), combined with the obligation to adhere to the Holy Canons, presents complex constitutional and ecclesiological questions. This article aims to analyze the interpretative trends of this right, considering both legal and theological dimensions.
Constitutional Law and the Limitations of Ecclesiastical Public Speech
- Conflicting Rights and Responsibilities
According to Article 5 of the Greek Constitution, freedom of expression is a fundamental right. However, its exercise is subject to limitations, particularly for public figures with significant influence, such as clergy. Professor Evangelos Venizelos asserts that the constitutional protection of the Church does not grant immunity to its members but rather acknowledges its historical and social contribution. Consequently, clergy—being subject to both state law and ecclesiastical regulations—are required to refrain from statements that could be perceived as an abuse of their religious status for non-ecclesiastical purposes.
- European case law
According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of religion (Article 9) are complementary rights that must be balanced. However, in Kokkinakis v. Greece (no. 14307/88), the Court emphasized that religious expression may be subject to limitations if it infringes upon the rights of others. In this context, Professor Evangelos Venizelos highlights that Greek jurisprudence tends to apply stricter evaluative criteria in cases where clergy engage in ethical debates, particularly in sensitive areas such as bioethics and family law.
The Canonical Teaching: From Byzantine Tradition to Modern Application
- Rules and Social Cohesion
Metropolitan Gregory Papathomas of Peristeri, a professor of canon law, emphasizes that the interpretation of the Holy Canons (e.g., Canon 12 of the Apostles, Canon 64 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council) is not intended to suppress individual expression but to safeguard ecclesiastical unity and order. According to him, any public statement by a clergyman that causes “scandal”—meaning spiritual discord—automatically triggers ecclesiastical disciplinary proceedings, irrespective of its legal validity.
- Contemporary Ecclesiastical Practice
Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia broadened the discussion, emphasizing that freedom of expression within the ecclesiastical framework cannot be detached from social responsibility. A characteristic example was the COVID-19 pandemic, during which conflicts between certain clergy and the state over church closures were addressed by the Hierarchy primarily as a matter of public health, rather than as an infringement on religious freedom.
Cross-Interpretations and Practical Challenges
- Examples of Dissent
During the period of economic adjustment program for Greece (2010-2018), public criticism by clergy regarding austerity policies—such as salary reductions for priests—did not prompt state intervention, reflecting the government’s reluctance to interfere in the Church’s internal disciplinary matters.
In contrast, the case of Metropolitan Eirinaios of Crete (2022), who faced accusations of inciting hatred due to remarks on sexual orientation, underscored the tension between canonical authority and European legal standards on hate speech.
- Proposals for Settlement
Evangelos Venizelos advocates for the establishment of a “dialogue of values” between the state and the Church, drawing on the concept of “synthronon”. According to this theory, the Church’s autonomy in canonical matters must be balanced with the uncompromising protection of human rights, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Conclusions
The examination of clergy’s freedom of expression reveals a complex reality where constitutional law, European jurisprudence, and canonical provisions both intersect and conflict. While Greek jurisprudence tends to avoid direct involvement in ecclesiastical matters, this does not diminish the necessity for a revised legal approach—one that acknowledges both the evolving interpretation of the ECHR and the deep historical roots of the canonical tradition. The scientific community is called upon to contribute to this dialogue by developing research proposals and ensuring academic impartiality.
*Professor of Ecclesiastical and Canon Law of Volyn Theological Academy of Ukraine- Lecturer of the Higher Ecclesiastical Academy of Athens
Translated by: Konstantinos Menyktas
